I am disappointed, but not surprised by the sentenced meted out by the court regarding the recent case where a tiger was killed. Once again, I am reminded that the punishment of criminals who persecute wildlife is never as serious as the atrocities they commit.

For chopping up an endangered Malayan tiger and storing it in his fridge, ready to be transported to his contacts in Thailand, 22-year-old Ang Chun Tan was fined RM7,000 last week.

Why did he not receive the maximum penalty of five years jail? Why was the fine not higher; the maximum amount being RM15,000? Would that have not taught him and others like him, a real lesson and serve as a deterrent?

Did the magistrate not understand the severity of his crime?

Was the magistrate unaware of the plight of tigers; that there are only an estimated 500 left in Malaysia, and about 5,000 left worldwide?

Was he aware that wildlife crimes are comparable to illegal trade in drugs and arms?

Was he aware of the public sentiment about this particular case, of the many letters that flooded the press insisting that the guilty man be punished to the full extent of the law?

If the magistrate was blissfully unaware of all this, one has to question just whose fault that is. And whose responsibility is it to rectify the current state of affairs? The judiciary, the judges, the lawyers, the public prosecutors and defenders; they are the ones in a position to actually see that justice is meted out.

It is difficult enough for wildlife authorities to apprehend criminals who poach, smuggle and trade in wildlife, so when they are successful, it is real shame that it goes to waste because the person who has the power to punish the guilty man to the full extent of the law has failed in his duty.